Friday, December 18, 2015

According to thirteen-year-old Juliet Capulet, not much of
anything. Why should she and her beloved Romeo be kept apart because she is a
Capulet and he is a Montague?

Besides, she says, “a rose by any other name would smell as
sweet.”

Our gratitude to Shakespeare for giving us this insight into
the teenage mind.

In one sense, Juliet is correct. But, a rose by any other
name would not be a rose either. And, like it or not Juliet was not a rose.
Neither was Romeo.

Among the more curious aspects of the current debate over
Islamic terrorism is President Obama's refusal to call Islamic terrorism
Islamic terrorism.

Republican presidential candidates have highly critical of this failure. Today, a Muslim writer, Fareed Zakaria comes to Obama’s defense.
For his part Zakaria has been willing to call Islamist terrorism by its proper
name. But he has defended the president for being unwilling to do the same. In
particular, he did so in an article entitled: “What’s in a Name?”

If it doesn’t matter what you call it, why go out of your
way not to call it radical Islam?

One is constrained to note that the repercussions that
follow from the word choice of Zakaria and Obama are not equal.

In Zakaria’s words:

Obama
and Clinton have chosen not to describe the enemy as
“radical Islam” out of deference to the many Muslim countries and leaders who
feel it gives the terrorists legitimacy. President George W. Bush was similarly careful in his
rhetoric. For this reason, throughout the Middle East, the Islamic State is
called Daesh , an acronym with derogatory connotations.

And yet, President Obama seems completely
befuddled over what to do about the situation he allowed to fester in Syria and
Iraq. If he had been a forceful and resolute commander, if he had shown
something resembling emotion after the Islamist terrorist attacks in San
Bernardino and Paris, Zakaria might have a point.

When Republican candidates denounce the Obama
administration’s non-policy, its pusillanimous refusal to risk any civilian
casualties, its willingness to allow the oil trucks to continue moving for fear
that taking them out would harm the environment, the problem seems to be beyond
naming. Or else, that the failure to name is a symptom of a more significant policy failure.

It may be that refusing to call the enemy by its name
is a clear sign that Obama has no stomach for a fight against any Muslims, no
matter how much they have perverted what he and his predecessor have called a
religion of peace.

Zakaria suggests that Obama’s refusal amounts to an act of
deference to other Muslim countries. He believes that calling radical Islam
radical Islam legitimizes the Islamic State.

The reasoning is peculiar, to say the least. And it ignores
the importance of reputation. It seems more likely that Obama and other Muslims
want to pretend that terrorist actions do not have any impact on the reputation
of Islam around the world. But, if that is the case, other Muslim nations would be absolved of having to help destroy ISIS.

In an effort to salvage the reputation of Islam, the Obama
administration has shown far more fight in the battle against Islamophobia.
And yet, why would one not think ill of Islam
when millions of Muslims are involved in terrorism and while hundreds of
millions of Muslims sympathize with them.

Thus, Obama’s failure to call radical Islam radical Islam
translates into inaction on the part of other Muslim countries. He says that we
need to be nice to Muslims lest they not help us to defeat Islamic terrorism.
And yet, if Muslims do not believe that the actions of ISIS reflect on them,
why would they take the risk of joining the fight against it. It’s not their
problem.

If the so-called “caliphate” contains both good and bad
Muslims, perhaps that explains why Obama is so cautious about bombing it. He is
unwilling to kill bad Muslims if the bombs also kill good Muslims. Thus, the
Islamic State need but use human shields to protect itself against American
bombs.

And, if names do not matter what about blasphemy laws? Why
did it happen that cartoonist Molly Norris was “disappeared” by the FBI for
encouraging cartoonists to draw pictures of Mohammed? And what about the
terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo for publishing blasphemous cartoons? Dare we
mention the fatwa issued on author Salman Rushdie for his book, The Satanic Verses. We note that Rushdie
survived the fatwa but that several other people associated with the book were
murdered.

Muslims are especially sensitive about what politicians and
other leaders say about their prophet and their religion. They insist that
everyone, everywhere show deference and respect to their religion and its
rules. The terrorists want to gain respect for Islam. And theirs is a religion that aspires to world domination. They begin with extorting respect through terrorism.

In Obama they seem to have achieved their goal. When Obama
speaks of Islam he often adopts a tone that is properly reverential. Doesn’t
this suggest an abiding respect for Islam? Doesn’t it manifest a fear of
offending the sensibilities of millions of people who would be prepared to punish
him for any blasphemous remark?

When the supposed leader of the free world responds to
Islamist terrorist slaughter by showing respect for Islam he is saying that
terrorism works. It causes people to have greater respect for the fearsome
warriors who are following the word of the Quran. A respect born of fear is
better than no respect at all.

4 comments:

Stuart: When Republican candidates denounce the Obama administration’s non-policy, its pusillanimous refusal to risk any civilian casualties, its willingness to allow the oil trucks to continue moving for fear that taking them out would harm the environment, the problem seems to be beyond naming.

Is this what we're talking about?http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/world/middleeast/us-strikes-syria-oil.html------Until Monday, the United States refrained from striking the fleet used to transport oil, believed to include more than 1,000 tanker trucks, because of concerns about causing civilian casualties. As a result, the Islamic State’s distribution system for exporting oil had remained largely intact.

The new campaign is called Tidal Wave II. It is named after the World War II effort to counter Nazi Germany by striking Romania’s oil industry. Lt. Gen. Sean B. MacFarland, who in September assumed command of the international coalition’s campaign in Iraq and Syria, suggested the name.

To reduce the risk of harming civilians, two F-15 warplanes dropped leaflets about an hour before the attack warning drivers to abandon their vehicles, and strafing runs were conducted to reinforce the message.-------

It doesn't sound like environmental damage is the concern, but if the purpose is to reduce the capacity for transporting oil, why do you need to kill the drivers as well?

For all we know the drivers are under force of blackmail and their families are under death threats for failing to drive the trucks.

But its easier to be arrogant and presume guilt because its easier on your conscience.

Psychologist Jordan Peterson says the two prime sources of evil are arrogance and resentment, and it makes sense to me. Resentment is what keeps your conscience at bay, and arrogance allows certainty, that your "final solution" is the only way for peace.

Martin Luther King said it better:---------The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it.

Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth.

Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.-------

And here, although you can have more respect for a hatred that is willing to look its enemies in the eyes.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gmarkus/MLK_WhereDoWeGo.pdf----------And I say to you, I have also decided to stick with love, for I know that love is ultimately the only answer to mankind's problems. (Yes) And I'm going to talk about it everywhere I go. I know it isn't popular to talk about it in some circles today. (No) And I'm not talking about emotional bosh when I talk about love; I'm talking about a strong, demanding love. (Yes) For I have seen too much hate. (Yes) I've seen too much hate on the faces of sheriffs in the South. (Yeah) I've seen hate on the faces of too many Klansmen and too many White Citizens Councilors in the South to want to hate, myself, because every time I see it, I know that it does something to their faces and their personalities, and I say to myself that hate is too great a burden to bear. (Yes, That’s right) I have decided to love. [applause] If you are seeking the highest good, I think you can find it through love.----------

Lest you think this is something new: http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2010/09/why-did-president-jefferson-read-quran.html

You can find a number of examples that lead Thomas Jefferson to taking action. The Library of Congress which was populated with the some 6500 books from Jefferson's library. Jefferson actually did what far too many Americans have not done and that is to read the Koran.Might I suggest the translation by Muhammad Taqi al-Hilali and Muuhammad Muhsin Khan titled "The Noble Qur`an"

Try Sura 9 verse 29 or Sura 47 verse 4

I spent a number of my formative years in the South and never met a klansman. If I remember my history I believe the klan started in Indiana, but it has been a while. Never really heard the "N" word either. I can remember my grandmother calling them "colored people". In fact the only time I saw racism was when I went to school in Massachusetts as a teen

"It may be that refusing to call the enemy by its name is a clear sign that Obama has no stomach for a fight against any Muslims, no matter how much they have perverted what he and his predecessor have called a religion of peace."

Ah, but there is so much in a name. Human beings name things all the time. You must define an enemy to recognize it and protect yourself from it. What I find interesting is that Obama consistently orates about the Left/liberal view of the virtues of a pluralistic society, as most Western countries do today. Our tolerance and diversity are our strengths, we are told. I would agree, so long as people do not become crazed with identity politics and ruinous, ruthless, sectarian metaphysics that say one religion is it, is all -- punishing those who will not conform, or killing them. What is so frighteningly bizarre, inconsistent and dangerous about Mr. Obama is that he's a consummate demagogue in this regard when it comes to identity politics in the domestic sphere, while he scolds us to not pay attention to racial/ethnic and religious identities when applied to Muslims.

You simply cannot have a pluralistic society when militant elements within certain pluralities want to kill you. This is where the grand "e pluribus unum" experiment fails. If you do not assent to the responsibilities of an American citizen, then there are certain consequences. And this is where Obama fails, because he picks and chooses his "common sense" proposals to deal with some issues, while uses a hammer when it suits him in other areas. He's simply not a leader of Americans, only certain Americans who correlate to Democratic Party voters. He doesn't seem to like America -- or Americans -- very much. He seems to like his people... whoever those are.

You cannot have pluralism when you have identity-driven maniac ___ists in the equation. This is true whether they be Islamists, or feminists, etc. When you are an ____ist, your entire worldview is funneled through your ideology, regardless or alternative evidence presented. This is not congruent with a pluralistic society. I assert CAIR's worldview is not congruent with a pluralistic American society. If Obama truly wants PLURALISM as he states -- and I assert you must always follow his choices, not his words -- then he should be talking about Islamists as global pariahs that must be eradicated. Not Muslims, but Islamists. Islamists are radical, fundamentalist Muslims. We can pursue an aggressive policy against them if we are willing to name them. Mr. Obama is not.

"And yet, President Obama seems completely befuddled over what to do about the situation he allowed to fester in Syria and Iraq. If he had been a forceful and resolute commander, if he had shown something resembling emotion after the Islamist terrorist attacks in San Bernardino and Paris, Zakaria might have a point."

There is one thing that I completely do not understand. At all. Would someone kindly explain to me why we have not obliterated every piece of American military equipment in ISIS hands? I can at least comprehend a (dreadfully naive) view that we cannot take out targets like trucks operated by civilians. Those are rules of engagement and, while misguided, they are actually grounded in something. Why on earth are we not sending out the Air Force -- without warning -- to take out every piece of our equipment these ISIS barbarians have commandeered? Why? It's OUR STUFF. If Obama screwed up by allowing Syria and Iraq to get out of control, he may have made a mistake. I can forgive him for that. What I cannot forgive him for is not taking away the high-tech, sophisticated means ISIS is using in the form of our arms and equipment. Unless we want ISIS to succeed and control territory. And if that's the case, what the hell is our foreign policy???

All the notes you make about Obama's illiberality in the face of Charlie Hebdo, Molly Norris and Salman Rushdie show an alignment with the sensitivities of the most radical Islamists. That is where our president stands on all this. Again, pay no attention to his words... note his choices. We have de facto anti-blasphemy laws based on our prosecutorial selections. Equal justice under the law? Not even close in this most politicized of Administrations.

So we simultaneously get Piss Christs and sacred Mohammeds. All paid for by your tax dollars -- from commissioning art to prosecuting infidels. Mr. Obama is reverential toward Islam, which means he is an imposter when crooning about protecting our other Constitutional freedoms. Behold: the leader of the free world.

As I have said before, I don't care what Obama's birth certificate says. The point is not whether his birth certificate is genuine, or whether it is a forgery. What I know is that Mr. Obama's bearing, inclinations and worldview are not American. Hillary Clinton seems like Norma Rockwell compared to Obama, at least in her bearing. I shudder to think what Obama would do following a large-scale Islamist attack like 9/11. Let's all pray we never have to find out.